Avondale Shipyards, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 29, 1967

162 N.L.R.B. 421 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

AVONDALE SHIPYARDS, INC. 421
MEMBER FANNING , concurring :
I concur in my colleagues' opinion except to the extent that it
relies on the absence of bargaining history on a more comprehensive
basis as a reason for finding that the skilled electricians involved
herein constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. For reasons
stated in my separate opinion in the Mallinckrodt case," issued this
date, I do not believe that the mere fact that craft employees have
been included in a more comprehensive unit can bar a petition for
an election in a separate unit of craft employees.
11 Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, Uranium Divislon, 162 NLRB 387.
Avondale Shipyards, Inc. and International Brotherhood of Boil-
ermakers , Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Help-
ers, AFL-CIO. Cases 15-CA-2601, -2, -44, -6, -8, -9, -10, -11, and
0660. December 09, 1967.
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 8, 1966, Trial Examiner Horace A. Ruckel issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, and on July 15, 1966, an
erratum thereto, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending
that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He also
found that the Respondent had not engaged in other unfair labor
practices alleged in the complaint. Thereafter, both the Respondent
and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision together with briefs in support thereof. The Respondent
also filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board
has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-
member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and
Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision and the entire record in these cases, including
the exceptions and briefs, and hereby adopts the findings, conclu-
sions , and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the follow-
ing modifications.'
1 Respondent ' s contention that employee Alford should be denied reinstatement is a
matter which should properly be raised at the compliance stages of this proceeding.
162 NLRB No. 40.
422 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Trial Examiner concluded that Respondent had violated Sec-
tion 8 (a) (1) of the Act. He did not, however, make express findings
of specific violations, and recommended only a general cease-and-
desist order. We agree with the General Counsel that in the circum-
stances of this case, a more specific order and notice are preferable.
Accordingly, we make our own independent Section 8(a) (1) find-
ings based upon the credited testimony in the record before us, and
find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act by
engaging in the following conduct :
1. Superintendent Poche'S 2 February 16 query of employee Willie
Finch as to why Finch was wearing a union button and if Respond-
ent was not paying him a decent wage, and a similar inquiry of Finch
that evening by Night Superintendent Bealer and Foreman Guidry.
2. General Superintendent Collette's conversation with employee
Finch, also on February 16, during which Collette castigated Finch
because of his membership in the Union and promised to protect
Finch from antiunion employees, if Finch would give Collette his
union button.
3. Foreman Guidry's February 16 promise to reemploy employee
Finch, if Finch gave Guidry the names of at least three employees
who had signed union cards.
4. Foreman Bentancourt's February 17 statement to employee
John Forbes to the effect that nothing could be done for Forbes
because he had been "branded an organizer for the Union" and was
"on [his] way out."
5. Foreman Watkins' conversation with employee Clarence Little
on February 13, during which Watkins asked Clarence Little if he
knew who was trying to organize the Union and remarked that any-
one seeking to do so would only be hurting himself and his friends.
6. Foreman Watkins' remarks to employee Clarence Little, 2 days
later, when Watkins asked Little why he was wearing a union but-
ton and commented that Little should have been smart enough to know
that, because he wore a union button, so far as his job was concerned
he might as well "pack up [his] gear and go."
7. Foreman Watkins' conversation with Clarence Little, the follow-
ing day, in which Watkins told Little he wanted to try " just one
more time," as a friend to get him out of the trouble he was in and
help him keep his job. To accomplish this, Watkins suggested that
Little write a letter to the Union, with two copies, requesting a
withdrawal from the Union, have the letter notarized and give it to
Respondent along with his withdrawal card.
2 The Trial Examiner inadvertently referred to this as having been made by Supervisor
Bougere Instead of Superintendent Poche.
AVONDALE SHIPYARDS, INC. 423
Accordingly, we shall modify the Trial Examiner's Recommended
Order consistent with our findings herein.3
[The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order
with the following modifications :
[1. Delete paragraph 1(a) and add the following paragraphs
lettered 1(a), 1(b), 1(c), 1(d), and 1(e) :
[" (a) Interrogating coercively employees concerning their union
activities or sympathies or those of their fellow employees.
[" (b) Conditioning reemployment upon disclosure of the names
of union adherents.
[" (c) Conditioning protection from physical violence upon the
surrendering by an employee of his union button.
[" (d) Causing employees to request withdrawal from the Union
under threat of discharge.
[" (e) Threatening employees with loss of employment if or
because they selected the Union as their representative."
[2. Reletter former paragraphs 1(b) and 1(c) of the Trial Exam-
iner's Recommended Order as paragraphs 1(f) and 1(g), respectively.
[3. Add the following as a new paragraph 2(b) and reletter con-
secutively former paragraph 2(b) and subsequent paragraphs.
["(b) Notify Carl Alford, Willie Finch, Bernard Borne, John
Forbes, Roy Boyd, and William Baker if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstate-
ment upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act
and Universal Military and Training Act of 1948, as amended, after
discharge from the Armed Forces."
[4. Substitute the following paragraphs for the third indented
paragraph of the Appendix to the Trial Examiner's Decision.
[WE WILL NOT interrogate coercively employees concerning
their union activities or sympathies or those of their fellow
employees.
[WE WILL NOT condition re-employment upon disclosure of the
names of union adherents.
[WE WILL NOT condition protection from physical violence
upon the surrender by an employee of his union button.
[WE WILL NOT cause employees to request withdrawal from
the Union under threat of discharge.
[WE WILL NOT threaten employees with loss of employment, if
or because they selected the Union as their representative.
In view of these findings , we deem it unnecessary to consider whether other of Respond-
ent's conduct , not specifically referred to above , also was violative of Section 8(a) (1) of
the Act.
424 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
[5. Add the following immediately below the signature line at
the bottom of the attached Appendix :
["NoTE.-We will notify the above-named employees if presently
serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to
full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selec-
tive Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service
Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces."]
TRIAL EXAMINER 'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This case comes before Trial Examiner Horace A . Ruckel upon an unfair labor
practice complaint dated October 28, 1965 , issued by the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board , herein called the Board , through its Regional
Director for Region 15 (New Orleans, Louisiana ), against Avondale Shipyards,
Inc., herein called Respondent , based upon charges filed by International Brother-
hood of Boilermakers , Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths , Forgers and Helpers, AFL-
CIO, herein called the Union . The complaint alleges in substance that Respondent,
by its supervisors and other agents, interrogated employees with respect to their
union interests and affiliations and those of their fellow employees ; promised to
assign and assigned employees to more desirable work in consideration of with-
drawing their support of the Union ; assigned an employee to a less desirable job
because of his union activities ; threatened an employee with physical harm for
engaging in union activities ; threatened employees with discharge if they engaged
in union activities ; and on various dates from February 8 to June 12, 1965, dis-
charged nine employees because of their union interest and affiliation. These
employees were Nelson Perkins , Carl Alford , Willie Finch , Bernard Borne, John
Forbes, Roy Boyd , William Baker , Clarence Little , and Henry Milligan . These acts
are said to be unfair labor practices within -the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) and
(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , herein called the Act, and
to affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Respondent filed an answer denying the commission of any unfair labor practice.
Pursuant to notice , I conducted a hearing at New Orleans , Louisiana, from
February 8 through 19 , 1966 , at which all parties were represented . At the con-
clusion of the hearing the parties waived oral argument . Subsequently , they filed
briefs.
Upon the entire record of the case , and from observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT '
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is a Louisiana corporation with shipyard facilities at Harvey and
Avondale, Louisiana , both of which are involved in this proceeding , where it is
engaged in the construction and repair of oceangoing and inland waterways vessels
of various tonnages . During the 12 months preceding the issuance of the com-
plaint , Respondent purchased materials and supplies valued in excess of $100,000
from directly outside the State of Louisiana . During the same period , it directly
shipped finished products valued in excess of $100 ,000 to customers located outside
the State of Louisiana. Respondent employs approximately 6,000 employees.
If. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Brotherhood of Boilermakers , Iron Ship Builders , Blacksmiths,
Forgers and Helpers, AFL-CIO , is a labor organization admitting employees of
Respondent to membership.
HI. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
The Union began a campaign to organize Respondent 's 6,000 employees in Feb-
ruary 1964. By the first part of 1965, it had solicited and obtained the allegiance
AVONDALE SHIPYARDS, INC. 425
of perhaps 1,000 of these. On February 10, March 1 and June 8 and 14, 1965, the
Union sent letters by registered mail to Respondent containing the names of 14
employees who had been designated as committeemen "for the purpose of orga-
nizing their fellow employees on behalf" of the Union. Among these were the names
of the employees named in the complaint as being subsequently discharged, and
whose discharges are hereinafter discussed. The credited, undisputed testimony of
Justilian Martin, organizer for the Union, is that as of February 1965, about 70
employees had been named to the organizing committee but that only the 14 whose
names appear in the letters bearing the above dates authorized the sending of their
names to Respondent. Clearly, these employees were the most active of the Union's
adherents. The letter of February 10 was posted on the bulletin board in the
Harvey yard.
B. The discharges
1. Carl Alford
Alford was employed as a welder from March 1954 to February 1965 when he
was discharged. For a period of time he was a welder foreman, a position which
he voluntarily left to resume work as a first-class welder. At the time of his dis-
charge he was on the second shift in Respondent's yard at Harvey. His shift fore-
man was Ackerman. Poche was the yard superintendent.
Respondent was notified by the Union in its letter of February 10 that Alford
was a member of its organizing committee, and Respondent posted the letter on its
bulletin board near the yard superintendent's office. Superintendent Poche testified
that he saw it on February 13, and Ackerman that he saw it on Monday, Febru-
ary 15. During the second shift which reported to work at 5:45 p.m. the following
afternoon, Respondent discharged Alford under the following circumstances.
When Alford reported for work on February 16, Ackerman assigned him to
welding lugs on the deck of drydock 1. It was raining hard. About 8:45 p.m., upon
finishing with the lugs, Ackerman assigned him to work on another dock. Alford,
who was drying himself and his equipment in the toolroom, reminded him that he
had just got out of bed with the flu, that he was soaking wet, and asked permission
to leave work. According to Alford, Ackerman said he could leave. Ackerman
testified that he refused permission. Alford did leave. On the following day when
he reported to work, he found that his timecard had been removed from the rack,
and when he asked Poche about this Poche told him he was discharged for having
walked off the job without permission. When Alford protested that he had not, and
that Poche "knew better than that," Poche, according to Alford's testimony replied,
"Well, you slapped me in the face and I am just slapping back." Telling Alford to
wait where he was until he could get his paycheck made out, Poche went to his
office, and Alford repaired to a small lunchroom in the yard where he talked with
some of the employees waiting to go to work. Poche reappeared and, taking Alford
by the arm, told him to come back to the office to wait because he did not want
Alford "down here even talking to these men."
Poche, though he admitted asking Alford not to talk to the men because he did
not want any "trouble," denied giving this reason to Alford. He did not deny
Alford's testimony as to his slapping Poche in the face. I credit Alford's account of
the conversation. I take Poche's statement that Alford had slapped him in the face
to refer to the announcement, just posted on the bulletin board, that Alford and
others had been appointed to the Union's organizing committee. I construe his
injunction not to talk to other employees, and his separating Alford from them, to
have been motivated by his concern that he might discuss the Union with them.
As to Respondent's contention that Ackerman had refused Alford permission to
leave the yard, I credit the latter's testimony that permission was granted. I note
also that, according to Ackerman's own testimony, Alford had never previously
absented himself without the permission of his foreman. I am of the opinion, and
I find, that Respondent discharged Carl Alford because of his union activities,
which had just been brought to its attention, and not for legitimate business reasons.
2. Willie Finch
Finch was a second-class welder whose last period of employment dated from
August 14, 1964. On the same shift that Respondent discharged Alford, Finch,
whose name the Union had sent to Respondent on February 10 as a member of
its organizing committee in the same letter it sent Alford's name, left the yard
under circumstances hereinafter related. Finch first wore his union button in the
426 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
plant on February 16. Shortly after the beginning of the shift, Fred Bougere, a day-
shift supervisor, asked him why he was wearing a union button and if Respondent
was not paying him a decent wage . Bealer, night welder superintendent , later made
the same inquiry of him. Still later, according to Finch, William Collette, general
superintendent, called him aside and spoke to him at length about the Union and
his role in it, saying that he thought Finch was "a better man than that," and that
he, Collette, had been working for the Company for 17 years and had too much
respect for it than to join a union, and that Finch ought to "get down on [his]
knees in shame" for doing so. When Finch told him that he preferred not to say
anything in reply, Collette went on to say that men who had worked for Respond-
ent for 15 to 20 years were "not going to put up with [your] wearing a union
button [in the yard]." When Finch asked Collette if he meant that the men were
going to "work him over," Collette replied that he himself did not "go for that
kind of doings," and promised that if Finch would give Collette his union button
he would see to it that the men would not bother him on leaving the plant at the
end of the shift, and that "everything will be all right within 20 minutes after you
surrender that badge to me." Finch made no reply to this and did not surrender
his union button.
Collette, called as a witness, testified to a conversation with Finch at an unspeci-
fied time, which, even accepting his account as true, has little if any resemblance
to the conversation which Finch testified took place on the night of his termination
as related above. On cross-examination, when asked what night he said it was that
the conversation which he related on direct examination took place, he replied, "I
didn't say what particular night," and that he was unable to fix the date. When
asked if it was some time around Finch's termination he said it was not. The con-
versation with Collette which Finch described as having taken place on the night
shift on February 16 through 17, at the time he was discharged, therefore stands
uncontradicted.
Shortly after Finch's conversation with Collette, Finch sent for Carl Guidry,
welder foreman, to get a pass to leave the yard. When Guidry arrived, he took
Finch to his office and gave him a pass.
According to Guidry, Finch said he wanted to quit because he was "too nervous
to handle the job," and Guidry said nothing at all. Finch checked in his tools, and,
according to his account, just before leaving Guidry called him back into his office
where, now in the presence of Lawrence Booth, a rank-and-file employee, Guidry
said, "Willie, I know what's happened. You got mixed up with Big Boy Evans" 1
and told him to go home and he, Guidry, would "get things fixed up, where you
can just drop all this union mess and come on back to go to work." Just before
Finch left, still according to his own testimony, Guidry added that if Finch would
give him the names of at least three employees who had signed union cards he
would be able to get him back to work very shortly. Finch replied that he did not
know three such people.
Guidry, as has been stated, testified that while Finch was in the office Guidry
said nothing at all to him, but merely made out a pass. He also testified that
Booth, who he said was present during the latter part of the conversation, said
nothing. I am unable to believe that neither Guidry nor Booth said anything what-
ever on this occasion. Booth was not called as a witness. I credit Finch's testimony
as to the statements made to him by Guidry._
The separation slip given Finch gave as the reason for his termination, "Quit,
refused to give reason." This is in contradiction with Guidry's testimony which is
that Finch gave as his reason for wanting to leave the yard that he was "too nervous
to handle the job." Finch's own testimony is that Guidry told him in his office that
he was in a nervous condition .2
Finch's further, credited, testimony is that when he asked Guidry to be passed
out of the yard he said that if he could leave he "just wouldn't get back," that he
was "afraid."
Respondent contends that Finch's separation was a voluntary quit, and the Gen-
eral Counsel that it was a forced quit, or constructive discharge. In support of its
contention Respondent points to Finch's past employment record which shows two
previous quits by Finch after short periods of employment by Respondent. Finch's
I Oscar Evans , organizer for the Union , and formerly , for 13 years , an employee of_
Respondent At one time he was a foreman
2 The record shows that Finch, who had been shellshocked in World War II, had had a
nervous condition for about 2 years , and that this was known to Respondent
AVONDALE SHIPYARDS, INC. 427
testimony is, however , that he quit on the occasion in question because of his
interrogation by Bougere and Bealer , the latter in the company of Guidry, shortly
after he had gone on shift , and because of the coercive statements by Collette and
his ill concealed threats that fellow employees might mistreat him on his way out
of the plant unless he took off his union button , all of which frightened him and
aggravated his nervous condition and determined him to quit . I credit this. Such a
concentration of supervisory disapproval and intimidation might well have caused
a stronger and less impressionable person than Finch to contemplate quitting his
job. Finch , moreover, had a long standing nervous condition which was well known
to Respondent 's supervisors . Respondent's foreman , in my opinion , took advantage
of this condition to coerce him into leaving the Union or his job. The result was
that Finch left his job.
3. Bernard Borne
Borne was employed continuously from April 1952 to February 18, 1965. When
Respondent discharged him, on the day following its discharge of Alford and
Finch, he was working as a first-class machinist on the first shift under John Bordes,
his foreman. He had been classified as a first-class mechanic since 1956. He joined
the Union , was named a committeeman , and the Respondent informed of it in the
Union 's letter of February 10. He wore his union button on the job.
On February 17, the day prior to his discharge , Borne was working on a vertical
boring mill when Bordes instructed him to bore a steel coupling for a propeller
shaft which had been sent from Respondent 's Harvey yard . Bordes showed him the
pieces to be machined , and gave him a drawing of the shaft and coupling into
which the shaft was to be fit . Borne, after measuring the coupling , told Bordes it
was too large for his machine. Constantine , superintendent of the inside machine
shop, when consulted by Bordes , said that it would be close but that it would fit.
Borne, accordingly , put the coupling in his vertical boring mill. When the machine
would not turn the coupling , Constantine told him to put it in the king mill and
he did so. This was the first time he had operated the king mill during his 13 years
of employment.
Borne worked on the coupling during the remainder of the shift and for several
hours the following day. Shortly before quitting time on February 18, he called
Constantine over to the king mill and told him he had a rough cut and that he
thought it was bored to size . Constantine measured it and found it one-thousandth
loose at the top, and about 20 -thousandths at the bottom . He sent for James Dur-
ham, tool-and-die superintendent , who told him the Harvey yard was waiting for
the coupling . Durham also measured it and, like Constantine , found it too large.
Constantine then telephoned Jimmy Cole, general superintendent , following which
Constantine told Borne , "Bernard , only one thing I can do to protect myself-I
will have to let you go ," and wrote out a termination slip for him which stated
that his work was not satisfactory and that he was not qualified for work as a
first-class machinist.
The testimony of Constantine is that the Harvey yard was subject to a penalty,
or demurrage , of $1,000 a day for failure to complete the job of which the coupling
on which Borne worked was a part . In fact, the deadline for the whole project was
extended for other reasons and the penalty was not suffered, even assuming that
redoing the coupling would have run beyond the original deadline. Constantine's
further testimony is that by "protecting himself" he also had in mind probable
criticism of his own work as a supervisor by Durham, with whom he professed to
have a running feud . Both his testimony and that of Durham is that the two super-
visors had harsh words and made disparaging remarks to each other , in front of
Borne, as to why Durham , who was not concerned with the job as project engineer,
should seek to check up on the coupling. The impression sought to be left by both
Constantine and Durham is that they were jealous rivals with a long standing
jurisdictional dispute. I am not convinced.
Borne's undisputed testimony is that he had never before been reprimanded by
either Constantine or Bordes, his immediate foreman, for poor work. Bordes was
not called as a witness , although he was the one who assigned Borne to work on
the coupling on February 17. Nor does it appear that Constantine consulted him
before discharging Borne. I am of the opinion that Respondent discharged Borne,
an employee of 13 years standing , not because of his work as an employee, but
because of his activity as a member of the Union 's organizing committee concern-
ing which the Union had informed Respondent the day before it discharged him.
428 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. John Forbes
Forbes came to work for Respondent in May 1962 and was put to work in the
blacksmith's shop under the supervision of Laurence Bentancourt, blacksmith fore-
man. At the end of his first night's work Forbes told Bentancourt that he was quit-
ting, rather than continue to work in the blacksmith's shop, and offered to donate
his 8 hours of time. Bentancourt, instead, got him work elsewhere in the yard. For
the 2 years or more of his employment, up to his termination on February 17, 1965,
the same day Respondent discharged Alford and Finch, and the day before it dis-
charged Borne, Forbes worked as toolroom clerk in toolroom 4.
Forbes joined the Union on February 9, 1965. He was named a member of its
organizing committee and Respondent was advised of it in the Union's letter of
February 10. On February 17, shortly after Forbes had started his morning work
in the toolroom, Superintendent Collette came to him with one Meaux, and told
Forbes that Meaux was taking over the toolroom because he had had a serious
operation and could do only light work. Collette told Forbes that Bentancourt
needed a man in the blacksmith's shop and to report to him.
Forbes' testimony is that when he arrived at the blacksmith's shop Bentancourt
expressed surprise at seeing him, told him that he would ask Collette for an
explanation, and later reported to Forbes that it was a "useless case" because
Forbes had been "branded an organizer for the Union" and was "on [his] way
out." Bentancourt, though admitting having a conversation with Forbes during
which Forbes expressed concern over being transferred to the blacksmith's shop,
denied the statement attributed to him by Forbes. I credit Forbes' account.
Forbes worked the remainder of the shift at work which, on the first day he
had worked back in May 1962, he had said he would quit rather than perform.
On the following day, Forbes went to the yard, picked up his paycheck, checked
in his tools, and left the yard for good.
Respondent's contention is that Forbes voluntarily quit his employment; the
General Counsel's that his was a forced quit, or constructive discharge.
Respondent's explanation of Forbes' transfer from his regular job in toolroom 4
is that it needed some place to put Meaux, an employee of long standing, upon his
return from undergoing an operation for ulcers, and that Meaux's need coincided
with the need of Bentancourt for a man in the blacksmith's shop. Granted that
work in the latter department would have been too strenuous for him, it remains
unexplained why Meaux was not, upon his return to work, assigned to his regular
job in rod shack 6, where he was working at the time he went to the hospital,
instead of displacing Forbes in toolroom 4. Work in the rod shack was light work
according to Meaux's own testimony on direct examination:
Q. (By Mr. MOLONY) Mr. Meaux, would you tell us where you were assigned
in February of 1964-
A. Well, I think I worked in the rod shack for awhile, in the rod room.
Q. Well, is this considered a strenuous job or is this light work?
A. That's light work.
Q. Why were you assigned to that job?
A. Because I had been operated and I couldn't strain.
Q. Had you told this to Mr. Collette?
A. Yes, sir.
* * * * * * *
Mr. McComb: This is a year prior to the discharges .
Q. (By Mr. MOLONY) How long, Mr. Meaux, did you work in the rod
shack?
* * * * * * *
A. Well, I started there, I think it's in February or March of 1964.
Q. And how long did you work there, sir?
A. 1965.
Q. When did you have your operation?
A. I was operated December 3rd, 1964.3
Hence, Respondent, after Meaux's return to work, instead of letting him go back
on his regular job in the rod shack at work as light as, or lighter than, Forbes' job
a He later testified it was December 22, 1964.
AVONDALE SHIPYARDS, INC. 429
in toolroom 4, put him on a job Forbes had performed for 2 years or more and
sent Forbes to a job which Respondent knew Forbes had at one time threatened to
quit rather than perform . I cannot accept as mere coincidence the fact that this was
only a few days after the Union informed Respondent that Forbes had joined the
Union and had been appointed to its organizing committee ? I am convinced that
Respondent , within a week after it had been notified that Forbes was on the Union's
organizing committee , transferred Forbes to the blacksmith shop in the belief that
he would quit rather than work there . The belief proved well founded.
5. Roy Boyd
Boyd came to work in September 1962 . At the time of his discharge on March 3,
1965, he was working as a first-class shipfitter on the second shift. He joined the
Union on February 2, 1965. His name was sent to Respondent by the Union in its
letter of February 10, as a member of its organizing committee . This letter, as has
been stated in connection with the discharge of other committeemen , was posted by
Respondent on the bulletin board in the Harvey yard. Beginning on February 15,
Boyd wore his organizing committeeman 's badge to work until his discharge.
On March 3, Hourcade , Boyd's foreman , lined him up to resume work on an oil
barge on which he had worked the previous workday, and which was not completed.
Just before work began , however, Hourcade took him off that job and directed him
to go to a YF-40 boat at the other end of the yard. His task there was to install
structural framing on the interior of the hull. Hourcade told him to continue the
work according to the pattern started on the previous shift, and showed him the
applicable blueprints and left them with Boyd. Boyd's testimony is that he could
not read blueprints and that Hourcade knew this. Hourcade' s testimony is that all
his first-class shipfitters knew how to read blueprints with varying degrees of com-
petency. His testimony on this point was as follows:
Q. . . . what did you mean?
A. I mean some of them know about drawings , more about drawings than
others.
Q. (By Mr. MOLONY) . . From your observation, how did Boyd compare
with the other first class shipfitters?
A. Well, the other two of them, he knew as much as them. I mean he put on
rudders and no questions asked . He did the work all right, you know.
Q. So out of four first class shipfitters , he was as good as two others at least?
A. Yes.
Q. And only one was better than he?
A. Oh, yes.
His testimony on cross-examination further described the qualifications of first-
class shipfitters:
Q. Do all of your shipfitters read prints?
A. No, sir.
Q. You don't require that of them , do you?
A. We require our first class fitter to know some drawings , . . . and some are
not qualified . . . they do have to know some drawings.
Q. What do you mean by some?
A. I mean if there is any question we line them out on the job... .
In any event , the drawings, as Hourcade termed them, called for brackets at cer-
tain places on the paneling Boyd was installing , and angles at other places. A
bracket, or plate bracket, was designated on the drawings by the symbol "PL," and
the angle, or angle frame , by the symbol "L." About midnight on the March 3 night
shift, with 2 hours to go before quitting time, Hourcade checked to see how Boyd
was progressing and found that in three or four instances he had installed angles in
places where the drawing called for brackets. Hourcade accused him of not follow-
ing the drawing and told him to "roll up and check out." According to Hourcade,
Boyd protested that Hourcade had told him to put angles in those places, to which
4 Nor do I accept the statements of Bentancourt and Collette that they had no knowledge
of Forbes ' interest in the Union. It is not disputed that Respondent was advised of this by
letter on February 10, and that it was posted on the bulletin board in the yard on Febru-
ary 13 Moreover , Forbes as of then began wearing his union button at work.
430 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Hourcade replied that he had told Boyd to "follow the drawing." Boyd's testimony
is that he installed the plates and brackets in accordance with Hourcade's verbal
instructions. Hourcade did not specifically deny this. His contention was that Boyd
had not installed the brackets and angles "the way the blueprint had it."
I am of the opinion that Hourcade's instructions to Boyd were confusing and that
he was uncertain as to whether the governing factor in performing his work on the
paneling was the pattern set by his predecessor on the first shift, the drawing left by
Hourcade, or Hourcade's oral directions. It is clear from Hourcade's own testimony
that Boyd's ability to read drawings was limited and that he was not required to be
able to read blueprints of any complexity, although there was only one of the four
first-class shipfitters who was better qualified to read them. I do not pass on the
contention of the General Counsel that Respondent "set up" Boyd for discharge by
assigning him to work necessitating greater familiarity with blueprints than he had.
I do find, however, that Respondent was motivated in discharging Boyd, rather than
merely admonishing him, by his affiliation with the Union and membership in its
organizing committee of which Respondent had been informed a few days previously.
6. William Baker
Baker, a first-class welder, had worked for Respondent somewhat more than a
year when, on March 5, 1965, Respondent discharged him. On February 26, he
joined the Union and became a member of its organizing committee. Respondent
received the Union's letter advising it of these facts on March 2, 3 days prior to his
discharge. Upon joining the Union, Baker wore his union button at work.
Immediately prior to March 4, Baker had been working under Tiffany, a welding
foreman, in the lower yard. On March 4, Tiffany told him to report to Bealer, night
welding superintendent, in the middle yard, some 15 minutes distant. Bealer told
him to report to Nicholson, another welding foreman. Nicholson assigned Baker to
work in the forepart of a barge, and told him that he would join him shortly and
show him what to do. When Nicholson arrived it was approximately 4:30 p.m., 30
minutes after the beginning of the shift. Sometime later Baker experienced trouble
with the current in his welding machine so that it fluctuated between being too high
or too low, that is, too hot or not hot enough. Since Baker was working inside the
vessel he was unable to see the welding machine.to which his line was attached. To
reset the machine it was necessary to climb out of the bow of the vessel, to walk
50 to 70 feet to adjust the machine, to retrace his steps and climb back into the
boat. He found that the control on the machine had been changed from the position
in which he had set it so that it registered too high. He estimated it took him about
10 minutes to make the round trip from the boat to the welding machine. His testi-
mony is that this occurred 15 or 20 times that shift. At lunchtime that night he
reported to Nicholson that his machine was being tampered with. Nicholson said
he had not seen anyone bothering it. After lunch Nicholson reported Baker's com-
plaint to Bealer who told him to keep his eye on Baker's machine. Nicholson's testi-
mony is that he then did watch it for a solid hour, and did nothing else during this
time 5 At the same time he spoke to Bealer about Baker's complaint, he told Bealer
that Baker's production was about one half of what he should be getting. This was
the first time Nicholson, according to his own testimony, had complained to Bealer
about Baker's-work although he had been under his direction periodically and he
had on occasions complained to Baker himself about his production.
On the following evening, March 5, Nicholson assigned Baker to the same work
he had done the previous night. This night, too, about dusk, Baker's current began
to fluctuate, again necessitating his climbing out of the boat, resetting his machine,
and climbing back in the boat again . This happened, he testified, perhaps 10 times
during the shift. About halfway through the shift Nicholson checked on Baker's
progress, found that he was producing at about the same pace he had produced on
the previous evening, and again reported the matter to Bealer. Bealer told him to
try Baker a little longer and, if he did not improve, to discharge him. About 9:30
p.m., 3 hours before the end of the shift, Nicholson discharged Baker, telling him it
was due to "low production."
Two witnesses, brothers, called by the Respondent, testified that it was not unu-
sual to have to reset a welding machine several times during a shift. One of them
recalled doing so four times and the other six on one occasion, and this was due to
6 He stationed himself 40 to 50 feet away from Baker 's machine. When asked if it was not
a fact that he could be seen by anyone wishing to tamper with the machine , he said he was
standing in the "shade of the forepeaks."
AVONDALE SHIPYARDS, INC. 431
natural causes. One of them, when asked, testified that on no occasion when he
reset his machine had the dial setting on the machine been changed from what it
was when he had set it. Baker's credited testimony, however, is that the dial setting
on his machine had been changed, and that at one time he secured the control with
a wire so that it could not be moved unless the wire was undone and the control
reset, only to find later, when his current fluctuated, that the wire-had been removed.
I credit Baker's account of the vicissitudes of March 4 and 5; and indeed the hap-
penings themselves are not denied. The General Counsel contends that even if the
evidence is not sufficient for a finding that Respondent was the author of these inci-
dents, nevertheless it warrants the conclusion that Respondent, with knowledge of
what was transpiring, failed to undertake any real investigation of the matter,6 or to
make any allowances for Baker's "low production," but instead took advantage of
the situation to discharge him. In so finding I do not overlook the fact that these
events, culminating in Baker's discharge, began only 2 days after Respondent
received notice from the Union that Baker had been named to its organizing com-
mittee and after Baker had begun wearing his union button.
7. Clarence Little
Little came to work for Respondent in March 1960. At the time of his discharge
on June 12, 1965, he was working as a first-class welder. He joined the Union on
February 3, 1965, and his name was sent to Respondent in the Union's letter of
February 10, as a member of the organizing committee. He signed up several
employees, wore his union button to work, and came to work with a union sticker
on his automobile, which he parked in Respondent's parking lot. His uncontradicted
testimony, which I credit, is that on February 13, Roy Watkins, one of his welding
foremen, after asking him if he knew anyone who was trying to organize the Union,
said that anyone seeking to do so would only be hurting himself and his friends.
Two days later, on the first day Little wore his union button, Watkins asked him
why he was wearing it and said that Little should have been smart enough to know
that, because he wore a union button, so far as his job was concerned he might as
well "pack up [his] gear and go." On the following day Watkins again approached
Little and told him that he wanted to try "just one more time," as a "friend," to get
him out of the "trouble" he was in and help him keep his job. To accomplish this
object he suggested that Little write a letter to the Union, with two copies, request-
ing a withdrawal from the Union, and have the letter notarized and give it to
Respondent along with his withdrawal card.
After these conversations there began, according to Little, a series of incidents
initiated by fellow employees, such as having his welding machine tampered with
various times, being waylayed in the yard by antiunion employees and threatened
with violence, having the cable to his welding machine stolen, and having water
thrown on him. As to the threats of violence by one of the employees, Booth, Little
reported them to Bealer who suggested that he avoid Booth. As to his welding
machine he suggested merely that Little reset it and continue working. As to the
water throwing, he told those working with Little not to engage in horseplay. I do
not find the evidence sufficient for a finding that Respondent was responsible for
these incidents, or as I did find in the case of Baker, Respondent knowingly toler-
ated them.
There is no evidence of any such incidents from the end of February until the
first part of June, when Respondent discharged Little under the circumstances here-
after related.
On Saturday, June 5, Little was assigned to weld galvanized metal under the
supervision of his brother, Ed Little, a welder foreman, under whom he periodically
worked. He worked at this several days, did other work 2 days, and then, on June 11
at 4 p.m., the starting time for the shift, was assigned again to work on galvanized
metal. This would have been the third night in a row on galvanized. At the same
time, Ed Little assigned two other employees to galvanized. This work, because of
the smoke it generates, is apt to nauseate a welder and for this reason Respondent
furnishes them with milk. Little testified that on several days the milk was sour, and
that he reported it to his brother who disclaimed responsibility for it.
On Friday night, June 11, according to his own testimony, Clarence Little became
ill. In any event, he reported to the first aid station. Here, according to the credited
testimony of the nurse on duty, he told her not to worry about his time, that his
61 do not credit Nicholson's testimony that he watched Baker's machine for an hour
or more, during which he did no other work whatsoever.
432 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
foreman brother had excused him from work, and would take care of his time. She
gave him a pass to leave the yard. The practice in the yard was that, after a certain
hour during the shift, an employee sent home sick would be paid from the first aid
budget, and prior to then from the production budget.
Clarence Little testified that when he became ill he reported the fact to his
brother, saying that he was going to first aid, and his brother told tim to do so and
then go home. Foreman Little denied this, and testified that from 4 p.m., when he
assigned Clarence Little to his job, until the following day he did not speak with his
brother, or his brother with him, but when he made his round at about 5:15 p.m.,
he found that Clarence Little was nowhere to be seen. As a result of this he went
to first aid to look for him and the nurse told him that he had left the yard and had
said that his brother would take care of his time. I credit the testimony of Ed Little
as against that of Clarence Little, and find that Foreman Little did not give him per-
mission to leave the yard.
When Little reported to work on the following day, June 12, Welder Foreman
Guidry and Foreman Little called him aside and Guidry asked him what had hap-
pened the day before and why he had said his brother would take care of his time.
Clarence Little replied that his brother had told him so. The two brothers called
each other a liar and Ed Little accused his brother of trying to "drag him in the gut-
ter with" himself. Guidry told Clarence to go to work, and left.
After Guidry's departure the two brothers continued the argument.? After a fur-
ther exchange of epithets Clarence Little, it is conceded, struck Foreman Little sev-
eral times on the head with his fist. The credited testimony of two bystanders is
that Foreman Little did not return the blows but sought only to fend off his broth-
er's. Guidry called Clarence Little to his office where Brown, welding superintend-
ent, discharged him.
The uncontradicted, credible, testimony of Ruby Little, Ed Little's wife, is that
in the following several days, in the absence of her husband, Clarence Little called
her on the telephone 15 or more times, made obscene remarks, and asked her what
she wanted on her husband's tombstone, because he was going to "take care of him."
The calls continued until she had the telephone number changed. Respondent con-
tends that even if it were to be found that Respondent discharged Clarence Little
because of his collective activity, he should not be ordered reinstated because of his
striking his foreman, and his subsequent behavior. I do not find that the question
arises, since, contrary to the General Counsel's contention that Respondent, through
Foreman Little, had provoked employee Little into striking his brother, or, in the
alternative, used the striking as a pretext, I find that there was no provocation moti-
vated by Clarence Little's activity in the Union.
While it may be that Ed Little was opposed to Clarence Little's activity in the
Union, I am unable to believe that he sought to bring about his brother's discharge
on June 12, or that Respondent used the events of that day merely as a pretext for
terminating him. In this connection I note particularly that an interval of over 3
months had passed since, so far as the record reveals, any incidents of hazing by his
fellow employees, and since any antiunion statements by supervisors. I am not able
to believe that Respondent, had it sought a pretext for Clarence Little's discharge,
could not have found a plausible one during that period. I am the more persuaded
to the contrary because this discharge presents a sharp departure from what I have
found to be the pattern of Respondent's discrimination with respect to those employ-
ees whose cases I have previously discussed. Without exception, these other employ-
ees were discharged within a few days after Respondent had been notified that they
had joined the Union, and had been appointed to it organizing committee. Little's
own name was included in the Union's letter of February 10, 1965, along with the
names of Alford, Borne, Boyd, Finch, Forbes, and Nelson Perkins,8 all of whom
were promptly discharged.
It is pointless to speculate why Respondent departed from the pattern in Clarence
Little's case, whether because his brother was a foreman and the hope that his
brother might influence him away from the Union, or because of the relationship in
itself, or for whatever reason. The fact remains that it did not discharge him, and
that it did thus depart sharply from the pattern of discrimination I have found. I
conclude that Respondent discharged Little on June 12 because of an unprovoked
attack on his supervisor.
There was a quarrel of long standing between the brothers.
'As well as the names of James Bryant and two other employees named Perkins whose
names are not included in the complaint, although charges were filed in their behalf.
AVONDALE SHIPYARDS, INC. 433
8. Henry Milligan
Milligan worked for Repondent as a first-class rigger from April 1, 1965, to his
termination on June 12. His supervisor was Lucien Rodriguez, rigger superintendent.
He joined the Union on June 2, and was made a committeeman, a fact of which
Respondent became advised on June 8.
In March 1965, Rodriguez began preparing the equipment necessary to rig the
ship Louise Lykes, including the prefabrication of cable, and cutting, placing, and
rolling it up. For this work he hired Milligan along with Plaisance, Calliouette, and
Adams and procured the loan of Loriel from another department. About June 8,
the prefabrication work was finished and Plaisance and Calliouette were assigned
temporarily to the electrical department, and Adams and Milligan to Westewego to
move a mid-section of a T-2 tanker. Plaisance and Calliouette were soon finished
in the electrical department, and Adams and Milligan at Westewego, and all four
were recalled to Rodriguez' rigging department on June 12, where Rodriguez, on
instructions from Blanchard, outfitting superintendent, told them that the rigging
work for which they were hired was finished, and that there was no more work for
them, and laid them off. Loriel returned to the department from which he was
borrowed.
The fact that Milligan was terminated 4 days after Respondent had received
notice that he was a member of the Union's organizing committee, raises a suspicion
that he, like others whose discharges took place a few days after notification that
they were committeemen for the Union, was also discharged for his union activity.
Assuredly, his layoff fits into the pattern of discrimination heretofore described.
I do not find the evidence sufficient, however, in his case. The others were regular
employees of several years standing. Milligan was hired specially for work on the
Louise Lykes along with three other employees. All were laid off when this work
was completed. I find Milligan's termination to have been for legitimate business
reasons.
9. Harlon Rushing
Rushing worked as a first-class welder on the second shift in the Avondale ship-
yard. He joined the Union on June 8, 1965, and his name was sent Respondent as
a member of its organizing committee. At the same time he began wearing a union
button at work. The complaint alleges that Respondent, on the same day it received
the information as to Rushing's union activity, discriminated against him by depriv-
ing him of overtime pay. It is Rushing's testimony that on this day, about 9:30 p.m.,
his welder foreman asked him if the button he was wearing was a Lone Ranger's
badge, to which he replied that it was a sheriff's badge, and his foreman added that
it made no difference to him one way or another, but at the same time said to him,
"Well, go in at 12:30 with the rest of them." Rushing testified that he, along with
certain other welders, had been for several weeks working a half hour overtime,
and following this conversation with Bealer he had this half hour overtime taken
away from him, and that he was the only welder in his group that did. Apparently
he continued to sign out at 12:30 until June 17 when he resumed working over-
time and in fact received more such work than previously.9 His further testimony
was that on June 16 he was assigned to working on galvanized metal for one night.
As has been found, this is disagreeable work. However, the record shows that other
welders do this work periodically, including Rushing, and that Rushing had done
it on various occasions prior to his joining the Union.
On this state of the record I do not find that Rushing was discriminated against.
10. Nelson Perkins
Perkins came to work for Respondent in March 1952. At the time of his dis-
charge on February 8, 1965, he was working as a first-class machinist on a turret
9It is contended additionally that Respondent restored overtime work to Rushing, after
June 17 in return for his renouncing the Union. The only evidence in support of this is
the fact that Rushing ceased wearing his union button about June 17, and that Rushing
had a conversation with Dealer in which Rushing said, in effect, that if lie was "man
enough" to put it on he was man enough to take it off. Rushing was vague and self-serving
as a witness. I do not find the evidence sufficient to support the contention that Respondent
restored overtime to Rushing in return for his leaving the Union.
264-047-67-vol. 1G2-29
434 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
lathe. He joined the Union on January 22, 1965, and on January 27 signed an
agreement to act as an organizing committeeman for the Union and authorizing
the Union to notify Respondent of this fact. The Union sent his name to Respond-
ent on February 10, along with the names of other employees. This, however, was
2 days after Respondent discharged him. He had been active in soliciting members
in the Union for some time previously, but always, he testified, when no supervisor
could see him. He further testified that no supervisor ever spoke to him about the
Union, and that he never wore a union button. Henry Constantine, welder super-
intendent who discharged Perkins on June 8, 1965, allegedly for careless work on
an openside planer, testified that he was not aware that Perkins was in any way
active in the Union. Under these circumstances, I do not find that Respondent dis-
charged Perkins for any reason other than legitimate business reasons.
C. Conclusions as to the discharges
I find that Respondent on February 17, 1965, discharged Carl Alford and Willie
Finch, on February 18 discharged Bernard Borne and John Forbes, on March 3
discharged Roy Boyd, and on March 5 discharged William Baker because of their
union membership or activity, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
I further find that Respondent did not discharge Clarence Little, Henry Milligan, or
Nelson Perkins, or discriminatorily deny overtime to Harlon Rushing, because of
their union membership or activity.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent, set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of Respondent , described in section I, above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation
of Section 8(a) (1) and (3) of the Act, I will recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act.
Having found that Respondent discriminatorily discharged Carl Alford, Willie
Finch, Bernard Borne, John Forbes, Roy Boyd, and William Baker, I recommend
that they be offered reinstatement and made whole for any loss of pay resulting
from their discharge to the date on which they are offered reinstatement, less their
net earnings during that period. Such backpay shall be computed on a quarterly
basis in the manner prescribed by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289, and shall include interest at 6 percent as provided by the Board in
Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
In view of the nature of the unfair labor practices committed , the commission of
similar and other unfair labor practices reasonably may be anticipated . I shall,
therefore , recommend that Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from in any
other manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed to its employees by Section 7
of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record, I
make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
2. International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths,
Forgers and Helpers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. By discouraging membership in a labor organization through discrimination
in employment , and by interfering with , restraining , and coercing employees in the
exercise of their rights under the Act, Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging
in, unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(a) (3)
and (1 ) and 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
AVONDALE SHIPYARDS, INC. 435
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
upon the entire record in this case, I recommend that Respondent, Avondale Ship-
yards, Inc., its officers, agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating coercively employees concerning their union activities or sympa-
thies or threatening their employees with loss of employment if or because they
selected the Union as their representative.
(b) Discouraging membership in and activities on behalf of International Broth-
erhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of its employees, by discharging any
employee or in any other manner discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of
employment or any term or condition of employment.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees
in the exercise of their right to self-organization , to form, join, or assist labor
organizations, including the above-named labor organization , to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing , to engage in other concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or mutual aid or protection , or to refrain
from any or all such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected
by an agreement authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by the
Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act:
(a) Offer to Carl'Alford, Willie Finch , Bernard Borne , John Forbes, Roy Boyd,
and William Baker, immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substan-
tially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and
privileges.
(b) Make whole the above-named employees for any loss of pay they may have
suffered by reason of the discrimination against them, by payment to each of them
of a sum of money equal to the amount he normally would have earned as wages
from the date of his discharge to the date of Respondent 's offer of reinstatement, in
the manner set forth in the section entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Preserve and, upon request , make available to the Board and its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security records , timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records relevant or necessary to the
determination of backpay due and to the reinstatement and related rights provided
under the terms of this Recommended Order.
(d) Post at its plant copies of the notice attached marked "Appendix." 10 Copies
of said notice , to be furnished by the Regional Director of Region 15, after being
signed by Respondent's representative , shall be posted by Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, at its Avondale and Harvey shipyards , including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced , or covered by any
other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 15, in writing , within 20 days from
the date of this Recommended Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to com-
ply herewith.ii
to In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board , the words, "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner" In the notice . In the further event that the Board ' s Order is enforced by a decree
of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a decree of the United States Court of
Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order."
11 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board , this provision
shall be modified to read : "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL offer the following employees immediate and full reinstatement
to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their
436 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
seniority or other employment rights and privileges: Carl Alford, Willie Finch,
Bernard Borne, John Forbes , Roy Boyd, and William Baker, and make these
employees whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the
discrimination against them.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or activities on behalf of Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Boilermakers , Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths , Forgers
and Helpers , AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of our employees, by
discharging or otherwise discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of any
employee's employment or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT interrogate coercively employees respecting their union activi-
ties, or threaten them with loss of employment if they join the Union.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations , to join or assist the above -named labor organization, or any
other labor organization , to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, and engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of col-
lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection or to refrain from any or
all such activities.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming
or remaining members of any labor organization except to the extent that such
right may be affected by an agreement authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act,
as modified by the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
AVONDALE SHIPYARDS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, T6024
Federal Building (Loyola), 701 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana 70113,
Telephone 527-6391.
Atlanta Gas Light Company and Truck Drivers and Helpers
Local Union 728, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America , Petitioner.
Case 10-RC-6504. December 29,1966.
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND DIRECTION
Pursuant to a Decision, Order, and Direction of Elections issued by
the National Labor Relations Board on April 20, 1966,1 an election by
secret ballot was conducted on May 20, 1966, under the direction and
supervision of the Regional Director for Region 10 among the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit in this case. At the conclusion of
the balloting, the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots
which showed that, of approximately 129 eligible voters, 127 cast
ballots, of which 62 were for the Petitioner, 62 were against the
Petitioner, and 3 were challenged. The number of challenges was
sufficient to affect the results of the election. Thereafter, the Peti-
tioner filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the
election.
1158 NLRB 240.
162 NLRB No. 37.